In Defense of Incrementalism
We hear all the time of slogans of radical change needed to fix some aspect of society.
To build on my column from the other week on emergent order, we simply can’t possibly understand the complex details and interactions of how society works around us. This can easily be understood about prevention of change. And, indeed, radical change should be viewed very suspiciously as extremely high risk for things to go off the rails.
A quick example of upending things leading to undesired results comes from some anti-corruption measures in the US. It was well understood that politicians would add special spending measures for their districts that were widely seen as corrupt when voting on bills. But those spending measures gave a reason for many Representatives to break ranks and do dealing that actually helped to get things done at a pretty small cost.
Another was to prevent big donors from controlling any politician by limiting the maximum donation any politician can receive from a single person. Well that’s a large part of what led to so much of the attention seeking behavior we’re seeing now since it’s a battle for small donations, the idea is to get in front of the most people by saying the craziest stuff.
Turns out a legislature may actually need a low level of corruption to function and make deals properly. How’s that for an unsatisfying Chesterton Fence?
The idea of being wary of changing things really should be viewed as is a promotion of slow changes from top-down organization rather than aversion to all change, though. Everyone has their view of how the world should be and often refuse to accept compromises to get there because it makes further movement less likely. This is just simply a mistaken way of thinking of how much of anything advances.
As the saying goes you run a marathon one step at a time. Moving things toward a direction you think is admirable is good, even if you don’t like the result. It makes it easier to make the next small step. By lowering the stakes, it makes things more about fights on small amount of merits rather than an all-in idea relating to how your opponents see the world.
It also helps you see flaws in your ideas and help correct them and make sure the complex downstream effects can be better seen. A great example of this that is currently going forward in the US is the idea to privatize the provision of public education. The idea being basically that parents are allowed to choose authorized private schools (known as charter schools) and they will receive the student funding rather than going to a government operated school.
The movement is succeeding because while many people may think that government operated schools are the problem, it doesn’t seek to radically upend a part of people’s community that has been there for decades. The change is slow. First allow one or two to show that the model can work. If it works well, allow for a few more, rinse and repeat. If there are problems, try to address those problems until it works and then expand.
The slow-roll is a much more effective tool for change in the long run by building on previous change. Just like we might not think an interest rate of 2% vs 3% is all that important, but it’s the difference in doubling the original investment in 23 vs 35 years. The idea of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is something that seems to be getting harder to get through as more people retreat to only really appreciate arguments from their own side, but there is a virtue to little victories.
An another point that is often overlooked about incrementalism is that it requires a self-awareness that things are actually pretty good. The first words of the US Constitution talk of making a “more perfect” union. The rhetoric is great, even though it was underlying a document and system that was quite a radical departure from the previous system. It requires a broader understanding that life is pretty alright for most people. Whatever your pet cause is, it’s worth remembering that the bad effects are mostly on the margins. Most people do pretty well with how things are and that many problems aren’t really all that problematic to most people.
It also requires admitting problems are hard. That’s why they’re problems to begin with and solutions have very real trade-offs. Those trade-offs often deal with conflicting values and worldviews that need to be argued out. Politics is, after all, just the art of dealing with other people. It also means you can recognize the validity of an opponent’s idea or motivations while still disagreeing. As someone generally on the right side of the spectrum, I tend to find a lot of social programs that are very well motivated counterproductive, that doesn’t mean I think the reason behind them is bad or the people working to implement them are bad people. I just think that while I dislike consequentialism, that doesn’t mean we can ignore real consequences.
Just look at my schools example from earlier. It’s easy to understand the sense of community that comes from a public school that has been operating for decades. And most public schools are pretty good and even the bad ones often have a long history that lots of people find dear. I get why people are wary of changes to things, that’s why it’s best to show those changes in small steps.
None of this to say major changes can’t or shouldn’t happen. Though it is to say that those changes should bubble up from below rather be imposed from the top-down. Think of how many people had a cell phone in 1998 compared to 2003 just a few years later and how revolutionary instant communication was. I am personally on the generational cusp that can remember how inconvenient life was then and always had to carry coins for a payphone, but never really had to live without being able to call people anywhere. In just a few short years, life was completely transformed. I’m sure sitcom writers absolutely despised the death an easy way for characters to have comedic misunderstandings though.
All of this to say is to stop seeing getting 10% of what you are looking for in political change as a loss. It many ways it’s a much bigger win because it’s much more likely to be enduring and able to be built upon in smart ways in the future. Building societal institutions is a decades long project, not about victories right now.
Personal Update
Well the pup’s best friend had an injury and while he still needs a bit of rest is now back to full play strength. Onlookers are often frightened by how rough they play but they love the roughhousing.
It appears Spanish weather is no longer agreeable as we’ve barely seen the sun in a few weeks and it’s driving me a bit batty.